Never mind, much of the debunking videos have themselves been debunked.
Your point is valid. The history channel explicitly told them to offer the most fanciful notions. Which they did. But at its core, once you know anything of antiquity and pre-history, you quickly confirm the official explanations are as fanciful as the extreme fringe stuff pushed strictly for entertainment purposes on the show.
The truth is actually between the two, but rather far away from anything offered by mainstream, protected by mighty pleas to authority and endlessly suppressed artifacts and well documented yet fringe history.
So people have a choice. Believe confirmed liars and gate keepers, usually with ties to secret societies and Jewish interests, or actual recorded history, genetics and the archeological record. I chose the latter.
much of the debunking videos have themselves been debunked
…
once you know anything of antiquity and pre-history, you quickly confirm the official explanations are as fanciful as the extreme fringe stuff pushed strictly for entertainment purposes on the show
…
endlessly suppressed artifacts and well documented yet fringe history
Links? Details? Specifics? Anything that you didn’t just pull out of your schizo ass?
They were doing the rounds back when the debunking videos first appeared.
As an example I recall, the shapes in paintings. "Debunked" as a common reference to something else. Except several paintings were of official events in which the official historical account recorded events of things flying in sky, "observing" the event.
So which is more likely, a painting recording an event which reflects the written record, or a supposedly common painting trope offered merely on a plea of authority? Which version is actually debunked? If you side strictly with evidence, the debunked is debunked.
With all of the purges, I have no idea what has survived. But needless to say, those debunking videos typically don't hold up well against actual history.
That said, you can believe Jews and secret societies well confirmed for historical revisionism (aka, your "schizo ass"), or you can believe the historical record and genetic science where applicable.
Again, I choose to ignore your ass, jews, and secret societies well known for historical revisionism, suppressed history and artifacts.
So which is more likely, a painting recording an event which reflects the written record, or a supposedly common painting trope offered merely on a plea of authority? Which version is actually debunked? If you sude strictly with evidence, the debunked is debunked.
Well considering that the sun and moon aka the “shapes” were not depicted in that way until many hundreds of years after the fact and during relatively narrow range of time in which religious art was heavily focused on incorporating such motifs, and the fact that the actual design of the shapes are drastically different painting-to-painting, despite their relative positions being very consistent as you would expect from an artistic motif, I’d say it makes far more sense that the shapes are exactly what art historians say they are and not aliens. Unless of course you think the aliens came down hundreds of years later to inform the christian world of how they should be depicting the scene but were were really bad at describing the appearance of the sky objects.
(post is archived)